jonaz108 wrote:No I didn't...Srila Prabhupada (not me) said that Buddha denied the existence of a Supreme Creator God, not Devas or Demi-Gods."...Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God,..."

Then I think there should have been a clear definition of the word "god" from the outset, whether it was from yourself or Srila Prabhupada. As you can see from the previous posts, there is much disagreement on what constitutes a "god". I'm sorry for any misunderstanding on my part.

shel wrote:Exactly, and only mortals know what is knowable to mortals. Or to put it another way, we don't know what we don't know. We can guess and make stuff up of course. We're very good at that.

You've failed to distinguish your terms - "god" is worthless if you don't define it. It is true that only an omniscient being could know there are no other omniscient beings. But a non-omnipotent omniscient being could certainly know that there is no ultimate creator deity without any contradiction.

I'm sorry Sir, but you've failed to distinguish your terms - "omniscient" is worthless if you don't define it. I know that 'knowing everything' sounds pretty straightforward, but maybe it's not. Why just the other day I was having a friendly chat with Gregkavarnos about this very topic. Some interesting things came up (despite the alledged lack of interest in such things ). For instance, does knowing everything mean knowing things in the future or across time?

Well, in a manner of speaking, yes. For instance, there are many prophesies that Guru Padmasambhava made that have unfolded in the last 1000 and some odd years precisely as he indicated. But this does not mean there was a set and determined unalterable future. I imagine it's kind of like looking at an inflatable ball floating down a river. If you know the lay of the river, and understand how these physical laws work you'd see there's a 99.9% chance it will appear a mile downstream. But someone in a boat could potentially grab it before then, or an alligator could chomp on it, or it could maybe wash ashore, etc. And it'd be much more likely to happen if the boater or alligator are told to do this by the omniscient one in advance. Anyway, you get the idea. There's a way to see the future with Wisdom mind, but it does not mean it is absolute, or unalterable, like fate.. it is more about seeing interdependent arising with total clarity, which then allows one to act or recommend actions that could shift the course if necessary.

Contentment is the ultimate wealth;Detachment is the final happiness. ~Sri Saraha

jonaz108 wrote:No I didn't...Srila Prabhupada (not me) said that Buddha denied the existence of a Supreme Creator God, not Devas or Demi-Gods."...Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God,..."

Then I think there should have been a clear definition of the word "god" from the outset, whether it was from yourself or Srila Prabhupada. As you can see from the previous posts, there is much disagreement on what constitutes a "god". I'm sorry for any misunderstanding on my part.

*EXACTLY this,* and not just in this thread. "God" is one of those words that can mean nearly anything (and therefore nothing much in particular) depending on the context. I recently spent a week among Sufis on a work trip. They way they describe God coincides almost exactly with the way Dharmakaya is described in some Mahayana schools. This may be why something called a "Sufi Sesshin" seems not only plausible but entirely natural from the perspective of their practice. Why not?

Frankly, when discussions like this stray too far from practice and into the weeds of debate for the sake of debate, the point is lost and time and energy are lost too. I'm seeing less and less value in debates over ontological absolutes in different Dharmic traditions as I grow older.

If I'm on the wrong track, I trust one of you to correct me.

Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

jonaz108 wrote:I am sad to see that some people prefer cheap insults rather than debate...There was nothing offensive in this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam,which has 5000 years old at least, and was not invented by Srila Prabhupada...I am in favor of pluralism but all I see is hatred between cultivators of alltraditions, some Vaishnavas included. So sad.With that, I am taking temporary break from forums of the kind, anddedicate myself to my sadhana.I am honored to have met some good souls here... sorry, some good people here.Your friend and servant,John

I don't think the verse is offensive, I think it's incorrect.

My response was an attempt to understand why someone would say something about the Buddha which seems so clearly incorrect to me. Statements made under the rubric of religion should be scrutinized, debated, and criticized just as much as statements made in any other context.

Historically, Vaishnavas and Buddhists never shied away from a strong debate with one another. Who won those debates depends on whose texts you read.

Prabhupada, also, was always ready to speak very strongly on views he felt were contrary to the truth, which, according to his estimation was the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition of Chaitanya.

Looking critically at such texts is not offensive, as long as we do it with politeness and appreciation, for the fact that such texts benefit the followers of those systems greatly. But analysis and discernment are essential aspects of the Buddhist dialectics, a rich tradition that has led to some of the richest insights in Buddhist literature. So if we were to abandon analysis and debate for fear of offending, the dialogue would be a great deal less interesting- for both Buddhists and Vaishnavas.

I myself made an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as possible according to my limited faculties) of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition in middle school before choosing Buddhism, so it is a tradition that I have a soft spot for, despite it being highly polemical.

In order to ensure my mind never comes under the power of the self-cherishing attitude,I must obtain control over my own mind. Therefore, amongst all empowerments, the empowerment that gives me control over my mind is the best,and I have received the most profound empowerment with this teaching.-Atisha Dipamkarabrtsal ba'i bkhra drin

JKhedrup wrote:Historically, Vaishnavas and Buddhists never shied away from a strong debate with one another. Who won those debates depends on whose texts you read.

Prabhupada, also, was always ready to speak very strongly on views he felt were contrary to the truth, which, according to his estimation was the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition of Chaitanya.

Looking critically at such texts is not offensive, as long as we do it with politeness and appreciation, for the fact that such texts benefit the followers of those systems greatly. But analysis and discernment are essential aspects of the Buddhist dialectics, a rich tradition that has led to some of the richest insights in Buddhist literature. So if we were to abandon analysis and debate for fear of offending, the dialogue would be a great deal less interesting- for both Buddhists and Vaishnavas.

I myself made an exhaustive study (as exhaustive as possible according to my limited faculties) of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition in middle school before choosing Buddhism, so it is a tradition that I have a soft spot for, despite it being highly polemical.

shel wrote:Exactly, and only mortals know what is knowable to mortals. Or to put it another way, we don't know what we don't know. We can guess and make stuff up of course. We're very good at that.

You've failed to distinguish your terms - "god" is worthless if you don't define it. It is true that only an omniscient being could know there are no other omniscient beings. But a non-omnipotent omniscient being could certainly know that there is no ultimate creator deity without any contradiction.

I'm sorry Sir, but you've failed to distinguish your terms - "omniscient" is worthless if you don't define it. I know that 'knowing everything' sounds pretty straightforward, but maybe it's not. Why just the other day I was having a friendly chat with Gregkavarnos about this very topic. Some interesting things came up (despite the alledged lack of interest in such things ). For instance, does knowing everything mean knowing things in the future or across time?

Of course the scope of omniscience can be debated, but for the purposes of the point at hand it doesn't matter.

jonaz108 wrote:I just want to hear serious, non-insultuous, opinions about this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

Atheists do not want any God, and Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God, but he adopted the means to instruct his followers for their benefit. Therefore he preached in a duplicitous way, saying that there is no God. Nonetheless, he himself was an incarnation of God.Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5.15.1, Translation and Purport:

It's probably good to understand their POV but it seems that it is just another thicket of views.

jonaz108 wrote:I just want to hear serious, non-insultuous, opinions about this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

Atheists do not want any God, and Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God, but he adopted the means to instruct his followers for their benefit. Therefore he preached in a duplicitous way, saying that there is no God. Nonetheless, he himself was an incarnation of God.Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5.15.1, Translation and Purport:

It's probably good to understand their POV but it seems that it is just another thicket of views.

Greg wrote: Of course the scope of omniscience can be debated, but for the purposes of the point at hand it doesn't matter.

Well, if you mean that in general any two random individuals or upholders of different paths can debate the scope of omniscience, then sure, of course. But the scope of omniscience according to the Buddha's Mahayana teachings and those of his Mahayana lineage heirs isn't up for debate between Mahayanists because a buddha's omniscience is explained very clearly in the abhidharma, sutras, and tantras.

I often see people on Dharmawheel (and I'm not necessarily referring to you because I don't fully know what you intended by your statement), but I often see people on this site speaking about this topic as though the teachings have failed to clearly define what buddhahood entails specifically, as though it's this vague concept and we have to figure out what it means for ourselves. Such people have simply made limited study of the teachings if they think this.

jonaz108 wrote:I just want to hear serious, non-insultuous, opinions about this verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

Atheists do not want any God, and Lord Buddha therefore said that there is no God, but he adopted the means to instruct his followers for their benefit. Therefore he preached in a duplicitous way, saying that there is no God. Nonetheless, he himself was an incarnation of God.Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 5.15.1, Translation and Purport:

It's probably good to understand their POV but it seems that it is just another thicket of views.

Kirt

Well said.

There's nothing inherently offensive about questioning the teachings of the Buddha or any other spiritual figure, but if such disagreements aren't rooted in historical evidence, logical analysis, or at least honestly earned personal experience, they're simply assertions of faith and essentially beyond discussion.

M.G. wrote:There's nothing inherently offensive about questioning the teachings of the Buddha or any other spiritual figure, but if such disagreements aren't rooted in historical evidence, logical analysis, or at least honestly earned personal experience, they're simply assertions of faith and essentially beyond discussion.

That parallels something I have been thinking about in another context: that where two beliefs differ, the only way to decide which of them is correct (or if either of them is correct) has to be "historical evidence, logical analysis or at least honestly earned personal experience," as you say. And this principle applies whether the beliefs are about observable real-world phenomena (e.g. Is Fred's car black or white?) or intangibles like the existence of gods.